How do we really want combat to be?

[Metallian]

I think the feeling is that, if you die in the first round on a failed save, then you died because of bad luck. If you kill the enemy in one round with a failed save, then you won because of good luck.

If the battle is won or lost primarily because of luck, a lot of people do not find it "dramatic" or "heroic."

If you have a few rounds of back-and-forth between the PCs and their opponents knocking off hit points or other resources, buffing themselves and hindering each other, then each side has a chance to make informed decisions, take risks, or run away...if the PCs die in such a situation, it is either because they were not good enough (made bad decisions) or because they chose to die heroically while taking a big risk. If the PCs succeed, it is because they made good decisions. I think that is much more satisfying.

The Metallian

 

[andargor]

Here here! Seven hours fighting a lich (his vampire cohort and assorted wraith and wight minions) is what my players took. Less than 2 minutes of actual combat time. SEVEN HOURS. Ugh. Momentum-killer.

Back to the "faster combat" opinion, I also agree.

What we do in our group is that if a player takes more than 6-10 seconds to make his move on his turn, we declare he "hesitates", and we move on down the order of initiative. The DM may take more time, of course, if there are several creatures he has to control.

This speeds up combat considerably, and forces the players to come prepared to the sessions and to prepare their specific moves in between their turn in the initiative order.

Cuts down on the "reading the rulebook during combat" dampening factor.

Andargor

 

[eryndel]

So, a lich should warn the onrushing warrior by only dealing some 60 points of damage to him instead of killing him? With the exception of it the spell being more likely to affect the fighter, what would the point be? Wouldn't the lich want to kill them instead of just "warn" them?

You're confusing a "meta-gaming" decision with an in game one. In the example above, the lich will be using every means possible to defend against the PCs. However, if save or die spells have been nerfed or made incredibly rare, then the lich wouldn't have those resources available. The issue is the GM wants to warn the players, an acts accordingly through the lich. The problem is that any high level spellcaster worth his salt has some sort of instant death clause. At least in 3.0. These effects are no longer rare, and therefore not as intimidating.

A banshee is dangerous 'cause it can kill with a scream, just like that. A lich is equally dangerous.

Agreed, but a lich is dangerous most specifically because she is an immortal spellcaster of illimitable power. If you have that AND the ability to kill at a whim, you rob from the banshee's schtick.

However, someone's mentioned that really there isn't much point in arguing this since it was only disintigrate and harm that were "nerfed." I personally don't mind because of the way that I like to run my games (low PC mortality). If you want to change things back... more power to you.

Since you asked how I really wanted combat to be.

Werner

 

[Tellerve]

I agree with Andargor about setting a short time limit to the actions. While it might not make the combat under 15 minutes or anything like that I'm sure it would shave off a few hours or more from a 7 hour fight.

As for the save or die stuff, I am going to throw my hat into Cyraneth's ring actually. One because I think people are ganging on him a bit, and also 'cause I agree with him. I do think (some) DMs are getting to not want to kill off the PCs (if it is called for). I think save or die spells are ok, especially since they have now been made reversable (by what Cyraneth said). I haven't actually looked at them in 3.5.

Tellerve

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I'm basing this assumption on the way the disintegrate and harm spells have been affected and on various posts (such as Black Omega's). I've also noticed a trend in house rules that remove death spells, and even a trend about softening energy draining. Even some posts about not using sundering attacks. All this hints at players and DMs being addicted to safety. Players don't want to give up weapons, characters, levels, etc. They don't even want to risk that. And since DMs just want their players to be happy, they don't use sundering attacks, energy draining monsters, death spells, etc. Is loss that hard to handle?

Sudden death, losing a favorite weapon, being drained of a level or two, etc. is bad, of course, but only a setback. Losing a few hit points is still okay among safety-addict players and DMs, as it is easily cured with a few spells, and there needs to be some dangers, right?

- Cyraneth

I am a player in Black Omega's campain which is a FR/Rokugan cross (and less my following coments imply otherwise let me state I am really enjoying it). If you are interested check out his story hour. I would disagree with him somewhat in the reasons he has not seen many save or die effects. For one thing the Rokugan world is set up such that these effects are considered to come from "tainted" sources whether or not they really are. As a result I have intentionally not used any of these effects so that my character won't be considered "tainted" and shunned or killed by the empire. Rokugan as a campain setting is already biased to fighters (Samurai).

I agree with Cyraneth though in that these things are being toned down not just by the designers but by the DMs as well. In addition to the campaign setting we are in it has been mentioned that we are paying a game of MAD when it comes to these effects. Essentialy it is up to us players whether we want to use the save or die spells. If we start using them they will be used back against us. I will admit that as a player I am risk adverse, so I am additionally not using these types of effects even when safe from discovery by the empire because that is the way for my character to avoid them being used back. Is this the way I realy want it? I am not sure. I am the staunch defender of 3.0 in our group in part because I feel that 3.5 moved towards fighters and that spellcasters are being stripped of thier powers (that and I hate the 3.5 DR). While I personaly am somewhat risk adverse that does not mean I want the options removed or the sense of fear from our openents lessened. So far Black Omega has managed to keep some sense of fear since there have been three character deaths including my character, but these have all been by fighters not spellcasters. I have just gained access to Slay Living though so I will see whether I will break the truce or not.

 

[TuDogz]

A couple of problems with save or die are these.

1) Players suffer the effects of any rule/spell more often than any given NPC.

If I am a lich or any wizard or particularly any sorcerer with knowledge of save or die spells I am going to use them regularly. It is not logical to have save or die magic in a campaign and not use it. Therefore players are going to run up against lots of save or die magic and then not save and die with high frequency unless you make your casters into fools who don't use their powerful mojo until they feel like creating a "dramatic moment". Now you have to make raise dead effects readily available or players are constantly starting new characters. At this point you have lost the fear of death because it is too prevalent and neither special nor dramatic. Not much more than a financial setback. "Okay we subtract 12,000 off the top for True Ressurrections... again... that makes everyone's cut 13,142 GP each."

2) Give it to the NPCs any eventually you have to give it to the PCs.

And how fun is it to DM for or with (from other player's perspective) a PC sorcerer that tosses off ten death effects every combat. Any player with that kind of effect will use it regularly unless they specifically temper it's use for metagame reasons.

As to the original question of what I want from combat. Presuming a combat against an equally powerful opponent. I would like it to be reasonably quick and I want it to turn on tactics, strategy and player teamwork. I want the player's to feel at risk and concern over death. I want them to need the option of running away when the dice roll poorly. I don't want some poor sap to get hit with finger of death in round one another in round two and then have to pull my punches to keep from having a TPK while the two dead guys hang out with their thumbs in their bungs for 5 hours.

 

[Wraithdrit]

The argument that save or die spells or even their new equivalents (which can still be devestating) are not heroic takes all the work and effort of a campaign or even just an adventure and strips it all away to assume that the single action of a single participant in a single round of combat can make or break the heroic-ness of a situation.

Bullhooey.

If I am an adventurer, and I go on some grand adventure and in the process learn that the big evil mojo bad guy is a lich, I'm going to do everything heroicly possible to set up for the inevitably nasty effects that said lich will be hurling. I'm going to make the decision on whether or not to charge into that throne room knowing that I will most likely die. I will heroicly charge in and take the death spell square in the chest hoping that the great plan me and my compatriots have hatched for them to be able to take down the nasty while I shrivel and die will work and my death will be something sung about for ages.

What isn't heroic about that?

Point is: Don't strip away the rest of the game and call it unheroic just because you have blinders on and are fixated on the repurcussions of one rule.

 

[AuraSeer]

The 3.5 spell changes have absolutely nothing to do with some overarching plan to downgrade spellcasting. They were changed usually because a given spell was unbalancingly powerful, and allowed characters to defeat characters far more powerful than themselves, simply by depending on lucky dice rolls.

You mention harm. The 3.5 version of this spell is weaker in a general sense, but it has the same intended effect: it removes nearly all hit points, from an opponent who represents a fair challence to the caster. The change is that it's no longer a death sentence for arbitrarily powerful enemies.

Before, any Clr11 could kill an epic CR 100 monster if the die roll went right. That's the game equivalent of throwing a banana peel at a battlemech, and hoping it slips and kills itself. It's hardly heroic, or even interesting. Removing that kind of tactic doesn't represent any kind of global change to the combat system, it just prevents one or a few spells from obviating the whole rest of combat.

 

[hong]

The argument that save or die spells or even their new equivalents (which can still be devestating) are not heroic takes all the work and effort of a campaign or even just an adventure and strips it all away to assume that the single action of a single participant in a single round of combat can make or break the heroic-ness of a situation.

Bullhooey.

You need to play more high-level D&D.

 

[DreamChaser]

As for the save or die stuff, I am going to throw my hat into Cyraneth's ring actually. One because I think people are ganging on him a bit, and also 'cause I agree with him. I do think (some) DMs are getting to not want to kill off the PCs (if it is called for). I think save or die spells are ok, especially since they have now been made reversable (by what Cyraneth said). I haven't actually looked at them in 3.5.

Tellerve

I can think of any spell that is "reverable" in 3.0 or 3.5.

The traditional insta-death spells as found in 3.5 are

Baleful Polymorph (Polymorph Other) (5th)--as past incarnations but a +4 save if the form is automatically fatal...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE

Blasphemy, Holy Word, Dictum, Word of Chaos (7th)--kills CL-10 HD or less (like 3.0 I believe).

Circle of Death (6th)--Fort save, kills up to 20d4 HD...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE

Cloudkill (5th)--Fort reduces to 1d4 Con damage each round, which is nearly as deadly but still...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE

Color Spray (1st)--Will negates. This requires the step of coup de grace attackes after rendering creatures stunned and or unconcious.

Disintegrate (6th)--Fort partial. 2d6 damage per level (minimum 22d6 at 11th level average 77 HP; the average 11th level fighter has 87 hp and good fort save, a wizard, sorcerer, or rogue is screwed though).

Eyebite (6th)--Fort negates. 4 HD or less fall comatose and can be killed at leisure...SAVE OR DIE in a couple rounds.

Finger of Death (7th)--Fort negates...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE (Death Ward protects)

Flesh to Stone (6th)--Fort negates...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE

Harm (6th)--Will half. used to be a classic just die spell (no save) but now it deals a minimum of 110 points of damage at 11th level. A fighter has poor will saves and fewer hp on average. it will kill him. obviously higher hp or a better save will affect this. even then, 55 hp damage is nothing to shake a stick at.

Implosion (9th)--Fort negates...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE for up to 4 creatures.

Imprisonment (9th)--Will negates. Doesn't kill them but takes them out of your hair so in combat terms, they are dead.

Magic Jar (5th)--Will negates. This one takes time and planning but possessing someone then killing their body (while the receptacle is in range) makes this a save or die spell.

Phantasmal Killer (4th)--Will and Fort negate...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE. Also the bane of rogues.

Polymorph Any Object (8th)--Fort negates.

Power Word Kill (9th)--You have to wait for the right time in battle but once it comes, you can kill with no save any creature. (Death Ward protects)

Power Word Stun (8th)--This takes more time, but a stunned creature is helpless and any creature (baring SR) is affected as long as they have less than 150 hp.

Prismatic Spray (7th)--Green, Blue, and Violet all essentially kill an enemy. The target can avoid on Fort or Will saves.

Scintillating Pattern (8th)--No save. Creatures of 12 HD or less are rendered helpless.

Slay Living (5th)--Fort partial...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE. (Death Ward protects)

Sleep (1st)--Will negates...renders creatures helpless.

Symbol of Death (8th)--Fort negates...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE (Death Ward protects)

Symbol of Sleep (5th) & Symbol of Stunning (7th)--Will negates. Renders creature helpless.

Temporal Stasis (8th)--Fort negates. Doesn't kill and is expensive but takes the target out of consideration.

Trap the Soul (8th)--Takes them out of the running. Requires preparation.

Wail of the Banshee (9th)--Fort negates. 17 creatures minimum...CLASSIC SAVE OR DIE (Death Ward protects)

Weird (9th)--as Phantasmal Killer

It seems to me that there are plenty of save or dies or save and may as well have died spells out there. Many of them do allow the target to be resurrected but disintegrate still turns the creature or object to dust if it kills them.

I guess this exercise has made me realize that there are plenty of options in terms of different types of spells. I have never seen the point of focusing on Harm, Disintegrate, and Haste when there are hundred of spells for a spellcaster to chose from.

Just my .02

DC